By Martin Loof, Sweden
Dear Comrades
Some comrades might wonder why have we decided to set up a faction
If you read our documents there are quite some arguments for that.
But here I would like to point out that factions are a part of the history of bolshevism.
If you read the document 'Against burecratic centralism' that was
written by Ted and Alan after the split in the 90s they make this very clear.
http://www.marxist.com/against-bureaucratic-centralism.htm
On Factions
The history of the Bolshevik Party was completely different to this.
Throughout its entire history, the Bolshevik Party had an intense
internal life, with internal debates, controversies, differences among
the leaders, openly expressed, yes, and factions also.
When we formed a faction to combat the disastrous “British Turn”, we
were immediately accused of disloyalty. In a circular the EC attempted
to prejudice comrades attitudes by feeding the “suggestion” that
members were “shocked” at this action. In doing this, the majority
merely demonstrate their abysmal ignorance of the real traditions of
Bolshevism and democratic centralism. Trotsky had this to say on the
subject of factions:
“In the Comintern, factions were forbidden, and this police ban
was alleged to be in keeping with the Bolshevik tradition. It is
difficult to imagine a worse slander on the history of Bolshevism It
is true that in March 1921 factions were banned by a special
resolution on the Tenth Party Congress. The very fact that this
resolution was necessary shows that in the previous period – i.e.,
during the seventeen years when Bolshevism arose, grew, gained
strength, and came to power – factions were a legitimate part of party
life. And this was reflected in practice.
“At the Stockholm Party Congress (1906), where the Bolshevik
faction was reunited with the Menshevik faction, there were two
factions inside the Bolshevik faction involved in an open struggle at
the congress itself over a major question, the agrarian programme. The
majority of the Bolsheviks, under Lenin’s leadership, had come out for
nationalisation of the land. Stalin, who spoke at the congress under
the name Ivanovich, belonged to a small group of so-called
“partitionists” that advocated the immediate partitioning of the land
among the small property-owners, thus restricting the revolution
beforehand to a capitalist-farmer perspective.
“In 1907, a sharp factional struggle was fought over the question
of boycotting the Third State Duma (parliament).supporters of the
boycott subsequently aligned themselves into two factions which over
the next few years carried on a fierce struggle against Lenin’s
faction, not only within the confines of the ‘united” party, but
inside the Bolshevik faction as well. Bolshevism’s intensified
struggle against liquidationism later on gave rise to a
conciliationist faction inside the Bolshevik faction, to which
prominent Bolshevik practical party workers of that time belonged:
Rykov, Dubrovinsky, Stalin, and others. The struggle against the
conciliationists dragged on until the outbreak of the war.
“August 1914 opened a period of regroupment inside the Bolshevik
faction on the basis of attitudes toward the war and the Second
International. Simultaneously a factional group was being formed of
people who opposed national self-determination (Bukharin, Pyatakov,
anthers).
“The sharp factional struggle inside the Bolshevik faction in the
first period after the February Revolution and on the eve of the
October Revolution is now well enough known (see for example, L.
Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution). After the conquest of
power a sharp factional struggle broke out around the question of the
Brest-Litovsk peace. A faction of Left Communists was formed with its
own press (Bukharin, Yaroslavsky, and others). Subsequently, the
Democratic Centralism and the Workers’ Opposition factions were
formed. Not until the Tenth Party Congress, held under conditions of
blockade and famine, growing peasant unrest, and the first stages of
NEP – which had unleashed petty-bourgeois tendencies – was
consideration given to the possibility of resorting to such an
exceptional measure as the banning of factions. It is possible to
regard the decision of the Tenth Congress as a grave necessity. But in
light of later events, one thing is absolutely clear: the banning of
factions brought the heroic history of Bolshevism to an end and made
way for its bureaucratic degeneration.” (L. Trotsky, Writings 1935-6)
A prior condition for internal democracy is the free flow of
information. Without information, it is impossible for the membership
to express an opinion, much less to determine policy. In this respect
also, our tendency has been completely unlike the Bolshevik Party or
the Communist International in its healthy period.
For the first five years of its existence, the Comintern held annual
Congresses, despite the extreme difficulties involved. Every section
discussed the problems of every other section. There were debates and
controversies. The Russian party, despite its overwhelming strength
and authority, did not attempt to use this to impose its views upon
other sections. The Germans, Dutch, Hungarian and other parties
pursued policies which were completely at variance with the standpoint
of Lenin and Trotsky (usually with very negative consequences), but
never experienced disciplinary measures or bureaucratic pressure. The
only weapon used by Lenin and Trotsky was the weapon of convincing
people by the superiority of their arguments. The tactic of character
assassination, bureaucratic manoeuvres and the pressure of the
apparatus was not the method of Leninist democratic centralism, but of
Zinovievism and Stalinism.
Compare the situation with us. There is virtually complete ignorance
about the work of comrades in other countries. This is true not only
of the rank-and-file, but even at IEC level. This body only rarely
meets. The Comintern held annual congresses. The IEC itself only meets
about once a year. The “reports” given to it are, in reality, a list
of our successes (very real and important, to be sure), for the
purpose of boosting morale.
But very rarely do we get information about the problems faced by the
comrades in difficult situations. This is not meant to be discussed
outside the centre. Thus, an entirely false and one-sided picture is
given even to the leading international comrades.
But the area about which there is complete ignorance is the workings
of the centre itself. Even the leading international comrades know
nothing about it. In the course of the recent debate, a representative
of the IS minority went to one of the main European sections that
supports the majority and asked the EC a simple question: “What do you
know about my work, or the work of any other IS comrade?” The answer
was a most eloquent silence. That speaks volumes about our internal
regime.
The same is true in relation to the British EC. At the beginning of
the dispute the Welsh CC cdes admitted that “they hadn’t a clue about
the workings of the EC”. That goes for the rest of the CC, who never
received any reports of its work, etc. Again the real state of the
organisation is kept secret. Comrades in one area have no idea what
the situation is in other areas – all they hear about is the
successes.
In the past, the lack of any written information was justified in
terms of security. It should be made clear that this refers almost
exclusively to security, not in relation to the state, but in relation
to the Labour bureaucracy.
It is quite ironical that the other faction now tries to justify the
regime at the centre on the grounds of “security” when they have blown
security sky-high by declaring an open organisation and publishing
detailed information about the tendency in the pages of the bourgeois
press.
The fact is that the argument about “security” has been used to
violate internal democracy and keep vital information from being
distributed. It is not a weapon against the labour bureaucracy, but
against the rank and file.
When we quotes against buercratic centralism we dont mean that the
situation is the same as in the 90s but we think that in that document
Alan and Ted draw a lot of correct conclusions that was then lost
We think we need to go back to those lessons and have a full
discussion on what went wrong and how should we change so that the
international functions better
Comradly
Martin
Sweden